Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Robber State Strikes (Updated)

There are occasions – and they are coming with increasing frequency – on which the Regime ruling us is laid bare to confront us in the stark majesty of its unalloyed evil.

For many of us, such incidents resonate with those awful hours on April 19, 1993, when the Regime's enforcers immolated scores of innocent people in a religious sanctuary at Mt. Carmel in Texas. We think also of such atrocities as the 78-day terror bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a campaign meant to force an Orthodox Christian population (ruled, as most are, by a socialist government) to surrender territory they consider sacred to Islamo-Marxist terrorists. And of course, the ongoing criminal occupation of Iraq testifies powerfully of the true nature of the Regime as the world's most powerful and murderous criminal enterprise.

Yesterday, the essential nature of the Regime was on display in Evansville, Indiana when agents of the FBI and the Secret Service attacked (I refuse to employ the gelded euphemism “raided”) the office of the Liberty Dollar, a company that manufactures beautiful precious metal bullion coins.

In an act of undisguised armed robbery, the Feds stole the company's inventories of gold, silver, and platinum, as well as two tons of recently delivered Liberty Dollars – in gold, silver, and copper, depending on the face value – bearing the likeness of heroic Republican Presidential aspirant Ron Paul (whose campaign, incidentally, had nothing to do with that tribute).

The Secret Service was involved in this crime because the Regime considers the private manufacture of precious metal coins to be “counterfeiting” -- and their use in private, voluntary, fully-informed transactions to be a species of “fraud.”

Roughly a year ago, I published an account of a conversation with Becky Bailey of the US mint. Ms. Bailey had condemned the Liberty Dollar as a criminal enterprise, since what the Feds are pleased to call the “law” forbids the use of gold and silver as legal tender.

In a telephone interview, I asked Bailey to answer the following hypothetical question: If an individual went to a local diner and offered a Liberty Dollar in exchange for a meal, and the proprietor agreed to provide the service on those terms, “is that transaction a crime?”

“Yes,” she replied. “I'm not an attorney, but our legal team has looked this over carefully, and they're convinced that exchanging gold and silver medallions for goods or services as if they were real currency – including in barter – is a violation of 18 USC section 486.”

I pointed out that the U.S. Constitution authorizes only the use of those metals as legal tender. That being the case, I asked, “How can it be a federal crime to use the only legal tender recognized by the Constitution in private transactions?” Ms. Bailey bridled at that question, asking if I wanted “to debate the legal and constitutional issues”; I replied that I wasn't interested in a debate, but simply asking her to explain a clear factual contradiction. She maintained that the constitutional language regarding the use of gold and silver had been rendered moot when the federal government went off the gold standard.

Tyranny is the condition that prevails whenever the government claims the power to render the law “moot.”

The criminals who plundered Liberty Dollar of its precious assets likewise froze the company's bank accounts, and made off with the company's files and computers. This suggests to me that the Feds may go after the organization – and possibly its customers – as a “criminal conspiracy.”

This is a “conspiracy,” once again, to sell people precious metals at a price they agree to pay, for use in private barter transactions between fully informed, law-abiding citizens.

A warrant, as Lew Rockwell has pointed out, is a note the government writes to itself giving itself permission to steal your property. With that in mind, the search and seizure warrants used to provide a patina of "legality" to the Feds' Liberty Dollar heist make for interesting reading (they've been posted at the Liberty Dollar website).

In keeping with recent trends in Federal larceny, this was described as a "civil forfeiture." Which means that the property stolen by the burglars with badges has been found guilty, and will only be released if the victims can prove that it wasn't involved in a crime. This includes everybody who bought Ron Paul Liberty Dollars, or who conducted other business with the company that was interrupted in mid-transaction when the Regime sicced its Goon Squad on the company.

According to the seizure warrant, "American Liberty Dollar and/or Hawaii Dala currency and/or precious metals of gold, silver, copper, or platinum or other substance and United States currency are forfeitable to the United States ... because it is property involved in, or traceable to, money laundering, or because it is, or is traceable to, gross receipts and proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of mail fraud...."

It isn't necessary to prove that anybody at Liberty Dollar, or any of their customers, committed an act of "money laundering" or "mail fraud." The allegations -- with were pulled out of the tax-fattened fundament of an individual identified as Special Agent Andrew F. Romagnuolo of the FBI -- are sufficient to "justify" the theft as a forfeiture.

Mr. Romagnuolo's office number is 828.253.1643. If you call him, please be impolite.

ANOTHER PAGE...

The Regime's imperial foreign policy is the primary reason that the fraudulent fiat currency called the “dollar” is in free-fall. A very plausible recent estimate places the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $1.6 trillion by 2009. And those costs will grow exponentially should the war expand to encompass Iran, Syria, and other nations.

By any rational measurement, the Iraq war has been a moral, strategic, and economic disaster. Tomorrow night (Friday, November 16) I will have an opportunity to explain why.

I will be debating the proposition, “Resolved: The U.S. Has A Justified Military Presence In Iraq” with the estimable Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of the Idaho Values Alliance. Mr. Fischer will argue the affirmative, I will argue the negative, with Pastor Glenn Ferrell of the Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church moderating.

The event will be held at the College of Idaho's Langroise Center Recital Hall, beginning at 7:00 PM. For those living in the Treasure Valley interested in attending, the address is: 2112 Cleveland Blvd in Caldwell. Parking will be available at the Jewett auditorium just off College Avenue. Seating is limited, and a video recording will be made of the event.

Completely Gratuitous Video Extra

In describing the fine art of scenery-chewing, we can employ an ascending scale of adjectives:

There is stentorian, then there's Shakespearean, and finally, there's Shatnerian.

The last refers to the ... oddly metered ... curiously ... punctuated ... styleofdeliverymadefamous by – the – one-and-on-ly WILLIAM SHATNER.

Love him, hate him, or merely study him out of anthropological curiosity, you must admit that it is difficult to ignore Mr. Shatner when he's in mid-oratory.

Candace Bergen, Shatner's multiple-award-winning* co-star on Boston Legal, once said that sharing a scene with him is a bit like trying to share a stage with animals and cute children: You're lucky to be noticed at all. (She meant that as a species of compliment, I think.)

Although he's absorbed plenty of abuse for his unfettered style, I consider Mr. Shatner to be an exceptionally fine actor when he's on (see, for example, his performance as Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov, his role as military prosecutor N.P. Chipman in the made-for-TV drama The Andersonville Trial -- in both of which his co-star was Richard Basehart, oddly enough -- or the sheer lunatic genius and occasional poignancy he displays as Denny Crane in the above-mentioned Boston Legal).

It was as the intrepid Starship Captain James Tiberius Kirk that Mr. Shatner found his defining role, of course. In the video clip that follows, Cap'n Jimmy T is given the opportunity – by way of a plot so exquisitely ludicrous it would make Baron von Munchausen say, “Hey, dude, I ain't buyin' that” -- to extol the singular virtues of the United States Constitution.

Yes, the scene is hammy enough to fill a boxcar full of Hot Pockets. But you know what? It gets to me. And I think the Ron Paul Revolution could do worse than to make the phrase “The Holy Words will be obeyed” into one of its rallying cries.

____

*I should point out that Mr. Shatner himself is a multiple Emmy winner.

12 comments:

I disagree with you about Iraq and some other things you said related. And we have had multiple family members there at risk since the First Gulf War. However, I will save that for another day.

As to the theft of Liberty Dollar's property I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I suspect this has much more to do with the upcoming presidential election than it does with "counterfeiting". For one thing, counterfeiting must be done with intent to supplant proper currency. There is no intent provable here. Especially since the coins or medallions do not in any way resemble any coin or paper currency state authorized to be in circulation as legal tender.

Two, every carnival you ever went to would put anyone's picture on any legal tender bill you offered up, as a novelty. The treasury department has ruled and it has been upheld that this is not counterfeiting because there was no intent to supplant, replace, or pass these bills as legal tender.

The government knows all this, it is their own ruling. Even though it regards constitutionally unauthorized money, these are the rules and positions they, themselves, have laid down regarding this money.

I fully expect all their legal troubles will go away after Ron Paul does not get the nomination of the Republican Party, even though he had no hand in the production of the coins.

This is an attack on free speech in an attempt to fix an election, so as not to get a consitutionalist in the White House, nothing less.

Of course, the owners of those medallions will be out huge sums in legal fees, but the government cannot show counterfeiting under the statutes and certainly not under the constitution. One caveat, it is possible with the state of American citizen apathy and ignorance, that a jury could be gulled by a corrupt judge abetting the corrupt prosecutor.

As to any attempted passing of these medallions as legal tender the charges should be laid against the individuals who so tried to use them. I would bet Liberty Dollars never once represented these medallions as legal tender. At most, they would have presented them as investments in precious metals.

The government knows it is wrong. It doesn't care. They have two chances to gain from this and no chance to lose. If in the best case scenarios the charges are dismissed, or second best scenario the owners are acquitted at trial, the government has still derailed any attention these medallions might have brought to a candidate every bureaucrat fears for his stance on the constitution.

In the worst case scenario, the judge is a soulmate of Jimm Larry Hendren and helps the state railroad an innocent man who has committed no crime, or aids the prosecution with an ignorant and pliable jury, they win the case, keep the precious metal and get bragging rights.

They have no downside. I fear before long the citizens of this country must supply them a dynamic downside.

This isn't about counterfeiting. Else the state would be going after every precious metal dealer that offer gold medallions for sale and they are not. Watch any late night television or read the back pages of any magazine and you will see advertisements for these medallions everywhere offered by many different vendors. The only difference is they don't have a likeness of a candidate for his party's nomination as a presidential aspirant.

straightarrow, I really appreciate your kind words and wishes toward Korrin. I'm not sure how she's doing; she's undergoing special treatment at a clinic several hundred miles from home, and I haven't seen her in weeks (even though we talk several times a day). I'll be seeing her this Saturday, if all goes well.

Will, I hope you or someone there will promptly put your debate on youtube. I'm always interested in Iraq debates because although arguing in the negative seems axiomatic there exist rational, freedom loving people who believe otherwise, and it makes me wonder (albeit briefly) whether or not I am somehow mistaken.

William, I fully agree with you that what the feds did is nothing better than highway robbery. Moreover, I really see no problem with people selling medallions and storing precious metals for others, as long as there is a demand. However, even though I put my savings into gold myself, calling the Liberty Dollars an inflation proof currency is a fallacy.

I looked into the notion that precious metals are inflation proof when I first decided to invest in gold. I found that despite inflation (the chart depicting $1 in 1913 being worth $0.04 today is true), wages have grown faster. In 1914, the average personal disposable income was $400; last year it was $1600 per year, inflation adjusted. Gold would make sense only for savings, which are indeed affected by inflation. However, even there it's not as simple: if the average American put all his savings into gold, between 1971, the end of the Breton Woods System and 2001, 30 years later, the value of his holdings would be no different than if he held all the money in a bank account. Only the most recent years show a difference.

I see value in alternative currencies, mainly as a barter medium to avoid taxes. For example, I see no reason for two people who perform services to each other (such as when I took wedding pictures for my massage therapist in exchange for a number of massage sessions) should be taxed for these services. Alternative currencies make these barter deals easier. However, I would not invest into Liberty Dollars as an investment vehicle for precious metals.

A very nice, and talented, gentleman from my neck of the woods, Dr. Paul Hein, authored a wonderful explanation of "money" (real and not) that's available on the web at

http://www.usagold.com/allworkandnopay.html

Therein he wrote: "And if you wish to obtain your fellow-man's wealth without producing any of your own in exchange, don't don a mask and set forth armed to prey upon him. Rather, persuade him to exchange his production for your 'obligations' or 'liabilities,' so that you can obtain his wealth in return for numbers which you write or engrave on a piece of paper. But be careful! Bills engraved in your garage or basement are counterfeit, and will get you into trouble. Those engraved in a certain building in Washington are 'legal' and will get you anywhere you want to go! The 'crime' of counterfeiting is not so much a matter of principle as of geography.' "

By the way, I began purchasing precious metals in 1997, and agree that Liberty coins are not a great investment. But that's not really the point of their purchase, is it? I'd have to guess the visage of Ron Paul on some had a great deal to do with the Federales' repulsion thereto, and their ultimate action.

Yes, once the Feds make a decision or law to grab rights and property, questioning their thuggish behavior is assumed to be irrelevant. They, after all, have guns, badges, titles, costumes, and the power to create unwanted "new realities" for us through the use of unbridled force. We, on the other hand, hold only a scrap of paper known as the Constitution and an apparently antiquated if not dangerous belief in inalienable rights.

One thought...Ron Paul's contributions went up quite a bit today. Maybe the Feds donated all that unmoney to the campaign!

If I thought them smart enough to pull something off that is that diabolical, I would say that this would be the perfect "smear" strike against Ron. I'm sure that in their tiny little minds the forces of the ruling class could imagine the negative publicity avalanche coming about as the result of the revelation that Ron Paul's campaign had accepted "stolen money", neglecting, of course to mention that it was the feds' own agents that had made the donation.